James Comey

You know things aren’t going well for Democrats when even MSNBC is embarrassed for them. Kudos to Morning Joe not only for putting together the following highlight reel of what Democrats used to say about FBI director James Comey, but for the perfect musical accompaniment and appropriate mockery after the reel ends. Enjoy: »

Former Attorney General Eric Holder is unhappy that James Comey informed Congress that the investigation of Hillary Clinton has been reopened. Holder expresses his displeasure in the Washington Post. Nowhere in Holder’s article does he address Comey’s stated reason for providing Congress with this information — namely, that Comey was obligated to correct his previous statement that the investigation was closed. But then, being honest with Congress never mattered to »

Communists taught the world the wonder-working powers of party discipline, but they have nothing on the Democrat/Media Axis (video below). Where have you gone, Joe Stalin? Via David Rutz/Washington Free Beacon. »

“Comey’s decision contrary to policy,” shrieked the lead headline in today’s Washington Post (paper edition; online headline is similar). But what policy did Comey violate? At the very end of their article Post writers Sari Horowitz, Tom Hamburger and Ellen Nakashima cite a 2012 Justice Department memo by Eric Holder. It states that employees “must be particularly sensitive to safeguarding the Department’s reputation for fairness, neutrality, and nonpartisanship.” If anything, »

The Democrats’ hysteria over the latest twist in the Hillary Clinton mishandling of classified information scandal is entertaining to watch. One of their themes is that former hero James Comey was warned not to let Congress know that the FBI’s investigation had been reopened. Today’s Minneapolis Star Tribune headline made me laugh out loud: He was warned not to meddle–by Loretta Lynch! When Comey let Hillary skate, despite overwhelming evidence »

Until yesterday, some conservatives were demonizing James Comey for being a tool of the Democrats. Now, many on the left are demonizing him for assisting Republicans. Both sides misunderstand the FBI director. It has been clear all along that Comey is trying to strike a balance in his handling of the Clinton email matter. He doesn’t want to come down so heavily against Clinton as to tilt the election decisively »

I keep swearing I’m never going to do any more “Hitler Learns About. . .” parody videos, but then something happens, like Carlos Danger emerging once again to create havoc in the Democratic Party firmament, and, well, you just have to. Herewith, from Power Line Productions, “Hitler Learns the FBI Has Reopened the Email Investigation.” »

Yesterday, I watched James Comey’s testimony from start to finish (okay, I fast-forwarded through some of the questioning by Democrats). Comey came across well. In a better world, all government witnesses would answer questions as straightforwardly as he did. Yet, Comey’s testimony continued to baffle me. Scott and I have discussed his seemingly nonsensical contention that more than gross negligence is required to establish a violation of a statute that »

I found several points in FBI Director Comey’s testimony today (and his statement on Tuesday) baffling. I only saw parts of his testimony today; if I missed testimony addressing any of these points, please forgive me. Here are a few that baffle me. The imposition of an element of specific intent on section 793(f): where did this come from? Comey elaborated on this in his opening statement. I found it »

I haven’t seen James Comey’s testimony before Congress this morning. However, Andrew McCarthy reports that Comey said the statute criminalizing gross negligence in mishandling classified information is invalid because it does not require proof of intent to improperly transmit classified information to places it is not supposed to be or to people not authorized to have it. According to McCarthy: The director claims that the statute has only been used »